18

The 2 main theoretical issues with an Animagus in an animal form doing magic would be:

  1. having the animal speaking human words - which isn't a complete impedimet due to ability of many wizards to cast Nonverbal spells.

  2. The inability to carry a wand - which again isn't as much of impediment due to ability to do Wandless spells.

Assuming they are proficient in both nonverbal and wandless spells, can a wizard in Animagus form do the same kind of nonverbal wandless spells they can do in a human form?

Canon based answers only please.

ibid
  • 93,732
  • 37
  • 488
  • 567
DVK-on-Ahch-To
  • 342,451
  • 162
  • 1,520
  • 2,066

4 Answers4

14

Whether this proves or disproves the theory is up to you: We do not know of an account of an Animagus performing magic (in animal form), so we do not know if they can.

Rita Skeeter transforms into a bug, and bugs the hell out of people by bugging them... But at no point is she performing any inherent feats of magic; she probably merely remembers all of the info she hears, and then writes it down once back in human form. She also cannot escape from Hermione's jar trap; she (Rita) would need to know how to Apparate which I'm not sure if she can, but still...

Sirius (in Animagus form) fights Lupin (in Werewolf form). They are clearly bare-fisted(toothed) fighting; could Sirius have stunned Lupin? maybe, but he doesn't. Also, I seem to recall Padfoot opening a door with his paws (or was that the Movie version?).

Wormtail is in his Animagus form (Rat) for many years - almost the entire duration from Voldemort's first demise and all the way until the events of Prisoner of Azkaban. He does not seem to perform any inherent feats of magic.

Babbity Rabbity is a character from the Tales of Beedle the Bard who apparently transforms into a Rabbit; she doesn't actually perform any magic (in her Animagus form), but she does threaten to do so (Cruciatus curse?).

Also, from the Tales of Beedle the Bard, Albus Dumbledore states:

Animagi do not retain the power of human speech while in their animal form, although they keep all their human thinking and reasoning-powers.

-Albus Dumbledore (footnotes), Tales of Beedle the Bard (Babbity Rabbity and Her Cackling Stump)

Human 'thinking' and 'reasoning-powers' could mean their ability to perform magic, but all we know is that the only thing they lose is their 'human speech'.

Möoz
  • 45,398
  • 37
  • 256
  • 451
  • 2
    Not conclusive enough to accept, sorry. But +1 for clear research. I THINK your data implies that they can't (otherwise Sirius would simply restrain Lupin magically), but unfortunately it's a weak implication, not a proof. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 25 '14 at 00:40
  • No that's fine. Like I said, all I've found is the absence of proof so far... – Möoz Apr 25 '14 at 08:26
  • 3
    I suspect that restricting Lupin with magic wasn't an option at all. Otherwise, one of the wizards present would simply have done so - no shapeshifting required. But instead, Sirius decided the best course of action was change into his Animagus form and go tooth to tooth with Werewolf Lupin. – Ellesedil May 15 '14 at 16:43
7

Let's have a look at every Animagi which is described with some details in the books. (I don't have the books right now, I'll add the quotes later, except if someone is faster than me in editing).

  • Minerva McGonagall does not appear that much in her feline form. Yet there is one clue that she may have been using magic while in this form (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone), when she first reads the map in front of Vernon Dursley but makes it disappear in a second. Of course, as a cat, she may also have given a small hit of her paw in order to make it slide out of his sight. I'd tend for this possibility in regard of what is coming.
  • James Potter is only mentioned in his stag form. Yet, when Lupin explains everything to Harry & co (in Prisoner of Azkaban), he clearly states that Sirius and James animal's form were big enough to handle him if he went as mental as you would expect a werewolf to be. I personnaly assume that if Animagi were able to perform magic in their animal form, the size problem wouldn't have been such a great deal.
  • Sirius Black follows the same reasoning as James Potter. As Mooz stated, the fight between WereLupin and Sirius was claws and teeth only. If Sirius could have just knocked his friend instead of injuring him, I bet he would have done it that way, given his personality.
  • Peter Pettigrew is said to be small enough to pass through the Whomping Willow's branchs and press on the knot on the roots. It is clearly stated in the books that one can use a spell such as Wingardium Leviosa to press than knot without losing an eye. If the Marauders could have avoided the whole "Change into a small animal to press that knot but lose a potentially helpful animal to handle Lupin's hairy problem", I guess they would have done it that way.
  • Rita Skeeter is IMO the best example of an Animagus unable to perform magic while in her animal form. When she is captured by Hermione and put in an Unbreakable jar, she could well have used magic whether to Disapparate or to open the lid. Yet she doesn't. Hermione used the Unbreakable Charm to prevent Rita tranforming back into her human form. Since Hermione is probably one of the people who read everything they could on any subject, and given that she hated Rita, she probably read everything that could be related to Animagi (in fact, she most probably did it in Prisoner of Azkaban, as she tells Lupin that neither James, Peter nor Sirius could be Animagi since they do not appear in the official list), so she must know how to handle and thus incapacitate Animagi.

To conclude, I'll say that :

  • No, Animagi can't perform magic in their animal form if you consider magic as "any charm/spell/jinx/whatever you want".
  • Yes, they can perform magic if you consider magic as "being able to cast at least one spell : in that case, transforming back into human (loophole in the question detected ?)
Community
  • 1
Orlahm
  • 3,161
  • 4
  • 25
  • 46
1

My thoughts are that wandless, nonverbal magic might be accessible, but it'd be something you'd have to work at. It seems that wizards in their animagus forms have various levels of complex thought, and I imagine that can be sharpened through repeated practice. Perhaps via something like occlumency to segregate their minds to harness the proper emotion and intent while in animal form.

And it probably wouldn't be much. Just little things like Minerva holding her map up to read as a cat and putting it away quickly. I think complex things like apparation would be well beyond their capabilities, which is why Rita was unable to escape. Even if they were super good at wandless, wordless magic, most of their magical potential is probably going towards maintaining the animagus transformation, so they'd just be working with the leftover dregs.

I also think the reason Sirius went toe to toe with Remus is because Werewolves are nearly impossible to restrain with magic. That's what makes them so dangerous. They're spell resistant just like trolls and dragons and giants are shown to be.

Kyo
  • 11
  • 1
0

Here is my try at answering this question.

I do not believe that the Animagus forms are capable of performing nonverbal wandless spells.

My reasoning for this is because of the fact that to perform spells and abilities you have to have some form of intelligence and control over emotions.

Magic in Harry Potter is connected with emotion as stated in the wikia..

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Magic

A witch or wizard's emotional state can affect their inherent abilities. For example, Nymphadora Tonks temporarily lost her power as a Metamorphmagus after suffering severe emotional turmoil and sadness over her grief for the death of Sirius Black, and when Remus Lupin would not return her affections. In effect, the form of her Patronus changed to reflect her love for him. The form of her Patronus changed to reflect her depression. In 1995, when Mad-Eye called her by her first name, her hair temporarily turned red. Wizardkind are also weakened when in the presence of Dementors for prolonged periods, as said creatures attack their prey psychologically by making them recall their worst memories, leaving the victims physically vulnerable.

Also as far as we are aware, when they transform into their animal forms they transform into ordinary animals. This would mean that the only ability an Animagus form has is the ability to morph back into their human form.

Further evidence is here...

Being an Animagus is an ability, and Transfiguring requires a spell. An Animagus still thinks as a human does when they are in their animal form, seeing as Rita Skeeter was able to eavesdrop on others' conversations when she was in the form of a beetle. However, an Animagus' feelings are not as complex when they are in their animal form.

DoctorWho22
  • 12,449
  • 3
  • 42
  • 73
  • 3
    Isn't that actually the opposite - the main difference between animagus and transfiguration is that you retain your mental human capacity as anumagus? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 17:50
  • You do realize you are taught the Animagus during transfiguration class right? – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 17:52
  • It's clear from the scene in book one with McGonigal in the classroom in cat form, and from Rita Skeeter "bugging" people in book 4 that in animagus form you retain at least enough of your human intelligence to understand language. – Ward - Trying Codidact Apr 10 '14 at 17:52
  • You retain some but I don't believe you are capable of casting any spells other than being able to transform back and forth... according to WOMBAT it states that Animagus might actually be kind of a transfiguration / self charm spell... It's not clear whether or not it's fully not a transfiguration. – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 17:54
  • The 2nd part I added states that feelings are not as complex meaning emotions are not the same as if they were in human form, thus changing their ability to use magic. – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 17:58
  • @doc canon supports the link in my comment. See Rita skeetrr – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 18:07
  • You mean the link that shows that Animagus is different from transfiguration... In that same area it states that in animal form they have less complex feelings aka emotions. Has Rita ever been seen to cast a spell while in animal form? – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 18:10
  • So wouldn't you link also lend to my theory of needing proper human emotions to be able to cast spells without wands? – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 18:11
  • @DoctorWho22 - no. The only spells that require emotion is Patronus and Avada Kedavra and Crucio. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 18:39
  • @DVK - Whatever magic it was that saved Harry's life involved Lily's love, although I don't think it's a spell, per se. Canon calls it "old and ancient" magic. Riddikulus requires humor. Love potions involve emotions, both real and false/induced. And I think I would argue that Sectumsempra involves quite a lot of hatred, although whether hatred is required isn't implicitly stated in canon, one does not usually have neutral or no feelings toward an individual one considers an enemy. Enemy is a strong category to fall into. Just musing a bit ... :) – Slytherincess Apr 10 '14 at 18:42
  • @Slytherincess - Love potions aren't spells... and you can be a cold fish and brew them. Lily's love wasn't a spell, but a special kind of magic. Sectumsempra doesn't require hatred as per canon (unlike Crucio)... merely correllates to being cast when the known casters were upset. Riddikulus doesn't require someone to be in a funny mood, merely an image that is funny to you as a concept (Neville cast it when nervous.. Harry cast it in the 3rd Task of Tri-Wizard when not exactly in a funny mood) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 18:46
  • DVK that's not entirely true remember when Harry made the glass in disappear when he got angry at the zoo? That was not Patronus, or Ava Kedavra, or Crucio... He used magic without a wand to make the glass disappear. Even Hagrid said in one of his first lines to Harry asking if he ever did anything extraordinary when he was mad or scared? – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 18:50
  • @DoctorWho22 - that doesn't affect the quality of the spell. It simply triggers the spell when you don't mean to cast it. Think of it as throwing a stone. It doesn't say the opposite (that casting wandless magic requires being emotional) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 18:51
  • Then I'd suggest closing the question because there is no canon answer saying that Animagus can or cannot cast spells while in their animal form. – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 18:52
  • 1
    @DoctorWho22 - "No canon answer" isn't a valid grounds for closing on this site. See meta. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 10 '14 at 18:53
  • You asked for canon based answers only. I attempted to argue for the fact that they cannot perform magic due to emotional state and being an animal. What kind of answer do you expect to get with canon material? – DoctorWho22 Apr 10 '14 at 18:57
  • (Not sure who to address this comment to:) There's the example of Bellatrix telling Harry you have to really mean it for an unforgivable spell to work, and then in Deathly Hallows he comments after using crucio (I think) on a Carrow that Bellatrix was right. – Ward - Trying Codidact Apr 10 '14 at 20:07
  • @DVK -- I was clear that I was just musing on the subject, but it wasn't without thought per se. When you dismiss everyone's canon-based suggestions, I fear there is no way for anyone except yourself to answer this question. I think some very valid arguments have been made by DoctorWho22, Hagrid's, "‘Not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen when you was scared, or angry?" being especially strong. That said, I think there is info out there on Animagi -- I'll look for it in a bit and if I find it I'll definitely post an answer :) – Slytherincess Apr 11 '14 at 01:16
  • @Slytherincess - canon info should also be logically tied to the question. Stating "animagus lowers your emotional levels" requires finding canon info for the fact that doing magic in general (not 2-3 specific spells) are harmed by lowered emotional levels. None of DoctorWho22's ideas came close to that. They were either about magic being done when it wasn't supposed to (like your own Hagrid example) which has NOTHING to do with the question I asked; or about some specific magic generated by emotion (which again is not useful - unless there's canon proof that ALL magic generates via emotion) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 11 '14 at 01:28
  • @Slytherincess - In short: Animagus keeps you intelligent but less feeling. There's so far ZERO evidence proposed that such a state would preclude you from doing magic in general, despite precluding a handful of specific emotion-linked spells (see http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/53747/are-there-spells-that-are-affected-by-casters-emotional-state-and-or-depth-of-e) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 11 '14 at 01:34
  • I wonder if changing into an animal changes your DNA? We know that the genes to perform magic are dominant but does this mean that if they changed their form into that of an animal, do they keep the their human DNA or at least the genes to perform magic. At the very least they are able to turn back into humans, though. – DoctorWho22 Apr 11 '14 at 02:25
  • In PoA, Professor McGonagall does give the students a basic overview of the Animagus transformation in Transfiguration class, but one class is certainly not enough time to teach them how to actually become Animagi themselves. Animagi are rare and are closely monitored by the Ministry of Magic. Hermione says, also in PoA, that there have been only seven registered Animagi in the last century; including the unregistered James Potter, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and Rita Skeeter, there are eleven known Animagi in Potterverse. Just wanted to clarify this. – Slytherincess Apr 16 '14 at 11:02
  • +1 I've read the comments and I think the 'less emotions' is good grounds to suspect that spells can't be cast. Lack of evidence for ALL spells requiring emotions isn't valid enough to disprove this, as we are given proof that some spells do require feelings. It is entirely possible that all spell require some emotion and with no way to prove or disprove this I think your answer is good – Matt Oct 02 '17 at 15:25
  • @DVK-on-Ahch-To You keep saying specific emotion-linked spells, yet Hagrid implied in the very first book that magic could be done by a Wizard when emotionally charged.... Those are not spells per say but using magic in general to do a phenomenon like making glass disappear.... Those are in essence wandless casting. – DoctorWho22 Oct 26 '17 at 02:00